Let's End Birthright Citizenship
We shouldn't be rewarding illegal immigrants with citizenship for their children:
Birthright citizenship is of critical importance—and not only to fighting terrorism. The current interpretation invites and gets no end of abuse. It is well known around the world that all you have to do is get a baby born in the United States to manufacture an instant U.S. citizen. Then, because of the “family reunification” emphasis in current immigration law, that “U.S. citizen” becomes the anchor in American soil that will allow the immigration of an almost unlimited stream of relatives (and then their relatives, and then…).As a result, heavily pregnant Mexican women are smuggled across the border to give birth here. According to the General Accounting Office, in 1995 there were almost 80,000 Medicaid-funded births to illegal alien women in California alone. That is probably more than half of California’s births to illegal aliens in that year. Seven years later, the number is probably much higher.
In South Korea and other Asian countries, travel agents sell package tours to pregnant women, flying them to Los Angeles so they can give birth in the United States (in clinics run by immigrants of their own nationalities, naturally).
Whether or not the alien mother and child stay after the birth, they make sure they get that all-important Social Security number and passport for the little “American,” so the family can eventually move to America.
The Citizenship Clause was put in the Constitution in 1868 for a very different purpose: to ensure that freed slaves could not be denied citizenship because they had not been citizens when they were born. It says
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”The current interpretation ignores the critical phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That phrase means that citizenship requires allegiance—which is more than the accident (even if it is not accidental) of being born on U.S. soil.
Yaser Esam Hamdi’s parents were Saudi. They were in the U.S. temporarily with no intention of staying and pursuing American citizenship. They were not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Mr. Hamdi could not be drafted into the U.S. Armed Forces. Mr. and Mrs. Hamdi could not be guilty of treason to the U.S.–they owed no allegiance. Neither does their Saudi son, no matter where he was born.
The point of the jurisdiction language in the Citizenship Clause was precisely to make it clear the United States is not asserting full jurisdiction over everyone born within U.S. territory. The exception that mattered in 1868 was the American Indian. Indians dealt with the Federal government through treaties, and were citizens of their tribes, not the United States. (U.S. citizenship was extended to them later by statute, which only proves the point.) Nor, as one of the Citizenship Clause’s authors, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, said in Senate debate, would the Citizenship Clause extend to persons born in the United States who are foreigners or aliens—including diplomats’ children.
Nevertheless, that is exactly how our Federal government interprets it today.
And how shameless is Mexico in promoting illegal entry into the USA? Much-missed temporary Angeleno Heather Mac Donald writes:
For starters, it publishes a comic book–style guide on breaching the border safely and evading detection once across. Mexico’s foreign ministry distributes the Guía del Migrante Mexicano (Guide for the Mexican Migrant) in Mexico; Mexican consulates along the border hand it out in the U.S. The pamphlet is also available on the website of the Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior, or IME (Institute for Mexicans Abroad), the cabinet-level agency that promotes Mexicanismo in the U.S.Nodding to U.S. law, the guide does briefly remind readers that “mechanisms for legal entry” into the U.S. exist and are the surest way to get in. But the book primarily consists of “practical advice” for entering illegally: do drink salt water and cross when the heat is lowest; don’t wear heavy clothing when fording a river. Do keep your coyote in sight; don’t send your children across the border with strangers—a Mexican variation on the usual parental advice. And don’t “throw rocks or objects at officials or at patrols since this is considered a provocation by those officials.” (This last piece of advice clearly hasn’t taken hold: attacks on the border patrol have steadily increased in number and viciousness.)
The guide’s recommendations on how to avoid detection once in the U.S. are equally no-nonsense: do keep your daily routines stable, to avoid calling attention to yourself; don’t engage in domestic violence—the Marvel comic–type illustration shows a macho man, biceps bulging, socking a woman a big one in the jaw. Don’t drink and drive because it could result in deportation if you’re arrested.
Mexico backs up the publication with serious resources for the collective assault on the border. An elite law enforcement team called Grupo Beta protects illegal migrants as they sneak into the U.S. from corrupt Mexican officials and criminals—essentially pitting two types of Mexican lawlessness against each other. Grupo Beta currently maintains aid stations for Mexicans crossing the desert. In April, it worked with Mexican federal and Sonoran state police to help steer illegal aliens away from Arizona border spots patrolled by Minutemen border enforcement volunteers—demagogically denounced by President Vicente Fox as “migrant-hunting groups.”
Disseminating information about how to evade a host country’s laws is not typical consular activity. Consulates exist to promote the commercial interests of their nations abroad and to help nationals if they have lost passports, gotten robbed, or fallen ill. If a national gets arrested, consular officials may visit him in jail, to ensure that his treatment meets minimum human rights standards. Consuls aren’t supposed to connive in breaking a host country’s laws or intervene in its internal affairs.
The border-breaking guide is just the tip of the iceberg of Mexican meddling, however. After 9/11, Vicente Fox’s government realized that the immigration amnesty that it had expected from President Bush was on hold. So it came up with the second best thing: a de facto amnesty, at the heart of which is something called the matricula consular card.
Mexican consulates, like those of other countries, have traditionally offered consular cards to their nationals abroad for registration purposes, in case they disappear. In practice, few Mexicans bothered to obtain them. After 9/11, though, officials at Los Pinos (the Mexican White House) ordered their consulates to promote the card as a way for illegals to obtain privileges that the U.S. usually reserves for legal residents. The consulates started aggressively lobbying American governmental officials and banks to accept matriculas as valid IDs for driver’s licenses, checking accounts, mortgage lending, and other benefits.
The only type of Mexican who would need such identification is an illegal one; legal aliens already have sufficient documentation to get driver’s licenses or bank accounts. Predictably, the IDs flew off the shelf—more than 4.7 million since 2000. Every day, illegals seeking matriculas swamp the consulates. Every seat and place to stand in the modest, white stucco Santa Ana, California, consulate was filled one morning this July, most of the people there seeking the 200 or so matriculas that the consulate issues per day.
As a friend suggested last night, the people we should start throwing in jail are those who hire illegals. Do you have an illegal immigrant cutting your grass or cleaning your house so you can pay them cents on the dollar of what you'd pay a citizen? I don't hire illegals. I consider it unpatriotic and wrong. Sure, it costs me double or triple to get my house cleaned ($75 for a tiny one-bedroom cottage). Seems a small price to pay not to contribute to the problem.
Paris is burning.
Y'know, it occured to me this morning that while we get more oil from Mexico than from Saudi Arabia, we are less concerned about Mexican immigration than Europe is with Middle Eastern immigration, though that's the source of THEIR oil.
Know why?
Mexicans WORK. So we're kinda OK with 'em.
And Paris' first response to this crises will be to buy the rioters off with social programs... This was even half-heartedly endorsed on Reynolds' blog yesterday. As if they had the money.
This opened my eyes this morning, from Steyn:
"The notion that Texas neocon arrogance was responsible for frosting up trans-Atlantic relations was always preposterous, even for someone as complacent and blinkered as John Kerry. If you had millions of seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Americans?"
For three years, Europhiles did a great job of disguising fear as compassionate, peace-loving principle. Game over.
Crid at November 6, 2005 9:55 AM
I completely agree that being born on US soil, with no other permanent ties to the US, is not enough for citizenship. That should be changed tomorrow.
But at the same time I'm not (nor is any other American) about to pick strawberries for $20 per day. It's admirable that Mexicans will.
We shouldn't worry about people crossing the Mexican border to do jobs that we won't, for money that we laugh at.
At the border, we should just make sure they're not Arab, make sure they're not Wanted for violent crimes and make sure they understand that should they fall ill while in our country, that's their problem because we won't pay for the wellfare of people who aren't citizens of this country. We'll find a border guard by closing the dept of homeland security. That's my solution for border problems and immigration in a nutshell.
little Ted at November 6, 2005 11:08 PM
I hate to see Arabs confused with criminals.
Investigate the hell out of all potential citizens as needs be, but lets not confuse the crazies with the general. America was built on the labor of the immigrant, if you will all remember, and it has worked so far... In our happy history we have hated the Irish, Chinese, Russians,, Japanese, Mexicans, etc etc etc.... most of all these people just wanted a better life and were willing to work for it, whatever their last name be.
Eric at November 7, 2005 1:14 AM
The citizenship-by-birth is an historical anomaly that long ago outlived its purpose, and I agree it should be abolished. This avenue to citizenship is accorded by damn few other countries, so we wouldn't exactly be out of the mainstream if we got rid of it - although we would obviously need the political will to contend with the preditable howls from Latinos (both U.S. citizens and otherwise), Latin American countries, and those who have a stake in illegal immigration continuing unabated (e.g., lots of businesses).
It's particularly egregious when this is used to bootstrap the rest of an illegal immigrant family into legal residency, who often get to stay in the U.S. when they would otherwise be deported, because the toddler citizen can't exactly be left on his own. It would be interesting to find out what proportion of medical costs for illegals (mostly covered by taxpayers, or by U.S. citizens in the form of higher medical costs) are attributable to the cost of providing obstetrical services for indigent illegal women.
Melissa at November 8, 2005 7:45 PM
Mexicans and Central Americans aren't just doing farm work - they're also doing construction jobs, factory jobs, low-level service jobs (hotels, restaurants, janitorial), and all manner of unskilled or low-skilled labor jobs. And they're driving down wages and driving out American workers from at least some of these sectors as a result. Based on what I have seen and read, illegal Latinos are primarily filling jobs that Americans don't want - it just looks that way because their presence allows employers to dictate terms and conditions that Americans won't accept (no benefits, long hours, unpaid overtime, unsafe conditions, etc.).
And don't forget that there is always a new wave of illegals who will accept the lowest of lowball terms if the current illegals and/or Americans won't. It's a race to the bottom, and you can't blame less-educated Americans for not wanting to join.
Even well-intentioned employers can be affected by the illegal immigrant labor pool. I'll never forget trying to hire a nanny, and getting my above-board offer rejected, because she insisted on being paid in cash, where I was insisting on paying Social Security, workers comp and other employment taxes (which, of course, meant she would have to pay income taxes). And this was a legal immigrant! But she was used to a market set primarily by illegals, and I couldn't compete with that.
The same would pertain to an employer who wants to pay a "living wage" but can't because they are competing with other employers who pay the going illegal-immigrant rates.
Melissa at November 8, 2005 8:07 PM
This hasn't been raised directly by anyone, but let me preemptively say that I'm really tired of people equating opposition to illegal immigration with racism or discrimination. There are many and vast differences between prior waves of legal immigrants and the current flood of illegal immigrants, and legitimate reasons for distinguishing between them in terms of treatment and policies.
To me, any initial discrimination or distrust of immigrant groups (past and present) isn't nearly as relevant as their willingness to learn English and assimilate, and their general respect for U.S. laws.
Illegal immigrants obviously feel free to disregard any law that doesn't suit them - not just immigration laws, but many get forged or stolen identity documents, drive without a driver's license or insurance, live more densely than zoning laws allow, operate unlicensed (sometimes illegal) businesses, don't pay taxes, and so forth. (Yes, I know I'm stereotyping, but I live in southern California and we see this and more on a daily basis).
Even if most illegals are generally law-abiding, I don't like the fact that they apparently feel free to pick and choose which laws to follow, in the name of economic freedom.
Melissa at November 8, 2005 8:24 PM
So many people fail to consider, when they cheap out and hire an illegal, whether their actions might have an effect on the whole.
Amy Alkon at November 8, 2005 8:27 PM
Can you tell by all my posts on this issue that illegal immigration is a big "hot button" issue for me?
As a friend suggested last night, the people we should start throwing in jail are those who hire illegals.
One of the best methods we have of enforcing our borders is penalizing employers who hire illegal aliens. And one of the biggest loopholes in virtually all proposals aimed at curbing illegal immigration is the lack of this enforcement.
The last time the U.S. enacted major immigration reform was 1986. Then-current illegals who had been here a certain amount of time were given amnesty and legal status, but in exchange, every employer was required to get proof that their employees were legally entitled to work. And they were supposed to be fined if they failed to get it, or if the employee documents were suspect.
That worked out well, didn't it?So let's try the same thing again, only let's call it a "guest worker" program, and make the illegals promise to go home after a few years (with no way to enforce it).
George Santayana must be rolling in his grave.
Melissa at November 8, 2005 8:33 PM
It's a hot-button issue for me, too. Glad for your posts. Deadline day. Isn't much left of me!
Amy Alkon at November 8, 2005 9:25 PM
Correction - Based on what I have seen and read, illegal Latinos are NOT primarily filling jobs that Americans don't want - it just looks that way because their presence allows employers to dictate terms and conditions that Americans won't accept (no benefits, long hours, unpaid overtime, unsafe conditions, etc.).
Melissa at November 9, 2005 10:38 AM
This sentence slightly misstates things: "Then, because of the “family reunification” emphasis in current immigration law, that “U.S. citizen” becomes the anchor in American soil that will allow the immigration of an almost unlimited stream of relatives (and then their relatives, and then…)."
Kids can't petition their parents in until they're 21.
jv at November 10, 2005 2:01 PM
The kid doesn't need to file the petition, JV. The parents can appeal a deportation order on the grounds that it would be a hardship for the citizen child to be left behind.
At the very least, the illegal parents can delay the deportation process for years with a claim like this, and then simply fail to show up at the next hearing.
Melissa at November 10, 2005 5:58 PM
Everybody talks about denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. But what about the children of legal aliens (ie. persons admitted to the US as permanent residents, as well as people in the US on valid student, work, or tourist visas).
Jerry at December 30, 2005 3:11 AM
Leave a comment